The victim's testimony, if found reliable, can form the sole basis for conviction under the POCSO Act, and legal presumption against the accused places the burden of rebuttal on the defense.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. L. R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Ms. D. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae representing the respondent No.2.

2. This application is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenging the impugned Order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Cachar, Silchar in Spl.(POCSO) Case No.57/2017, convicting the appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act & 376 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-in default to Simple Imprisonment of 6(six) months.

3. The brief facts of the appeal is that; on 05.09.2017 the complainant i.e. the mother of the victim lodged a written complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar stating that prior to the lodging of complaint, the accused appellant used to visit in the house of the complainant and expressed his love towards her minor daughter and with false promise of marriage, he forcibly committed rape upon the minor girl of the complainant. On the pretext of marriage, the accused appellant established sexual relationship with her minor daughter and as a result of which she became pregnant. When the victim requested the accused appellant to marry her, instead of marrying her, he provided her with some medicine for termination of pregnancy and after consuming the same, the victim was hospitalized at SMCH, Silchar for severe bleeding. The complaint was accordingly forwarded to Office-in-Charge, Dholai P.S. to investigate the case and on receipt of the said complaint, the case was registered under Dholai P.S. Case No.244/2017 and started investigation.

4. During the course of investigation, the IO recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and also examined the other witnesses. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused appellant under Section 376/313/417 of IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. Thereafter, the case was sent before the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar for trial and accordingly, the learned Special Judge framed the charge under Section 376 of IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act; the charges have been read over and explained to the accused appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution side examined as many as 6(six) witnesses including the victim. The accused appellant did not adduce any evidence, however, he pleaded not guilty while his statement was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After recording of the evidence and hearing the arguments put forwarded by the learned counsels of both sides, the learned Special Judge passed the impugned Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2021 by convicting the accused appellant under Section 376 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 4 of POCSO Act.

5. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar, the present appellant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds:-

5.1. The learned Trial Court committed grave error in facts as well as law in passing the impugned judgment and order by convicting the accused appellant and as such, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed.

5.2. The learned Trial Court miserably failed to appreciate the evidences on record in its true perspective and came to a perverse finding, and as such the same is liable to be set aside and quashed.

5.3. The said Court also failed to appreciate the fact that no documentary evidence is produced before the learned Trial Court to establish the age of the victim girl, whereas, the registration of birth and death was made mandatory in Assam after 1987.

5.4. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidences of prosecution witnesses which suffered from contra